Too sweet for me

By Laion Okuda & Beatriz Magalhães

Level B1 Intermediate/ B2 Upper Intermediate

Image created by AI

Love and Objectification: A Linguistic, Philosophical, and Psychological Perspective

Love is a complex emotion that can be understood in different ways. This text explores how love is shaped by language, philosophy, and psychology, showing how objectification—reducing a person to certain attributes—affects relationships.

1. The Linguistic Perspective: How Language Shapes Love

Language influences the way we think about love. Words can simplify emotions and sometimes turn people into objects rather than individuals.

·        Generalization in Language: We often use broad terms like trophy wife or love object, which reduce a person to a role or appearance.

·        Grammar and Objectification: In English, an object is something that is acted upon. This concept extends to relationships when people are viewed as things to possess.

·        Media Influence: Films, advertisements, and social media shape how we see love. The "male gaze" (Laura Mulvey) describes how media often presents women as objects of desire rather than individuals with depth.

📌 Key Idea: Language and media shape our ideas of love, sometimes leading to objectification instead of genuine connection.

Plato believed love starts with physical attraction (eros) but should evolve into a deeper emotional and intellectual bond. However, even in this model, love begins by seeing a person as an object of beauty. 2. The Philosophical Perspective: How Thinkers Define Love

Plato: Love as a Journey

Plato believed love starts with physical attraction (eros) but should evolve into a deeper emotional and intellectual bond. However, even in this model, love begins by seeing a person as an object of beauty.

Schopenhauer: Love as Biology

Schopenhauer saw love as an instinct for reproduction. This perspective reduces love to its function, ignoring emotions and individuality.

Kierkegaard: Love as Superficial Attraction

Kierkegaard described some love as aesthetic, meaning it is based on pleasure and temporary attraction. This type of love values only the "image" of a person, not their deeper qualities.

Lacan: Love as Fantasy

Lacan argued that we often idealize the person we love, turning them into a projection of our own desires. This means we may not truly love the real person, but instead love the idea we have created.

📌 Key Idea: Many philosophers agree that love often starts with objectification, but true love should go beyond physical attraction.

3. The Psychological Perspective: Love and the Mind

Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love

Psychologist Robert Sternberg explains that ideal love includes intimacy, passion, and commitment. However, when love becomes objectifying, passion dominates, and true emotional connection is lost.

Bowlby’s Attachment Theory

People with insecure attachment may focus on external validation. They may see their partner in a shallow way, valuing physical traits over personality.

Freud & Lacan: Self-Objectification

Some people see themselves through the eyes of others. This self-objectification leads to relationships based on appearance and unrealistic expectations.

📌 Key Idea: True love requires emotional connection, not just attraction. 4. Consequences and Solutions

Negative Effects of Objectification

·        Personal impact: Low self-esteem and unrealistic relationship expectations.

·        Societal impact: Reinforces gender stereotypes and power imbalances.

How to Avoid Objectification in Love

·        Use better language: Instead of saying "I love your looks," say "I appreciate your kindness."

·        Support positive media: Engage with films and shows that depict real, complex love.

·        Be aware of how media and language shape expectations.

📌 Final Message: Love should not be about possession or appearance but about understanding, connection, and individuality. By changing how we speak, think, and see love, we can create healthier relationships. References

1.       Plato. Symposium. (c. 380 BCE) (Plato’s discussion of love as a progression from physical to spiritual forms is a foundational source.)

2.       Schopenhauer, A. (1818). The World as Will and Representation.(Schopenhauer’s view of love as driven by instinct is used to illustrate a natural, yet reductive, aspect of objectification.)

3.       Kierkegaard, S. (1843). Either/Or. (Kierkegaard’s discussion of the aesthetic stage—where fleeting pleasures dominate—is referenced as a case where objectification limits deeper connection.)

4.       Lacan, J. (Various works) (Lacan’s ideas on the mirror stage and the anxious feeling of being watched help explain how self‐objectification and idealization can occur.)

5.       Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A Triangular Theory of Love. Psychological Review, 93(2), 119–135. (Sternberg’s theory is cited to explain how overemphasis on physical passion—when divorced from intimacy and commitment—can lead to objectifying tendencies.)

6.       Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books. (Bowlby’s work is used to show that insecure attachment patterns may foster a reliance on external, appearance-based validation.)

7.       Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women's lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(2), 173–206.*(This article forms a central part of the discussion on how objectification—both in media and relationships—can lead to negative psychological outcomes.)

8.       Nussbaum, M. C. (1995). Objectification. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 24(4), 249–291. *(Nussbaum’s analysis refines the concept of objectification by outlining multiple properties and distinguishing between harmful and benign forms.)

9.       Papadaki, E. (2007). Sexual Objectification: From Kant to Contemporary Feminism. Contemporary Political Theory, 6(4), 433–454.*(Papadaki is referenced for the philosophical evolution from Kant’s ideas to contemporary feminist critiques of objectification.)

10.  Mulvey, L. (1975). Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. Screen, 16(3), 6–18.*(Mulvey’s seminal essay introduces the “male gaze” concept, which underpins the discussion on media’s role in reinforcing objectified images of women.)

11.  ]NYU Steinhardt. The Effects of Sexual Objectification on Women's Mental Health. Retrieved from https://wp.nyu.edu/steinhardt-appsych_opus/the-effects-of-sexual-objectification-on-womens-mental-health/

12.  SAGE Journals. Objectification Theory: Toward Understanding Women's Lived Experiences and Mental Health Risks.Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x